-- If you have issues viewing or accessing this file … you have issues viewing or accessing this...

--I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

"C)

---I-±-ICY)

--=i-I

SUBJECT

REPORT NUMBER

FOR

CONTRACTOR

CONSULTANT

IAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADHINISTRATION (LEAA)

POLICE TEC}lliICAL ASSISTANCE REPORT

c: c r:: IJ IU" '1977 vL £J t I

An Assessment of the Potential for Law Enforcement Consolidation

76-222-108

Summit County, Colorado

Population: 6,200 (estimate) Police Strength (Sworn): 22 (all de

partments)

Square Hile Area: 616

Public Administration Service 1776 Hassachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036

Charles H. Girard

CONTRACT NUHBER J-LEM-002-76

DATE July 25) 1977

--------~----~------ -~~~----~- ~--. ~ --~- -_.

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I.

II.

III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREHORD

INTRODUCTION

ANALYS IS OF TIlE PROBLE.."1 Background La,v Enforcement in Summit County

Manpmver Police Education and Training Prior Exper:.ence of La~v Enforcement Officials Internal Operating Systems Radio Communications Current Costs

Assessing the Possibility of Consolidation The Legal Basis The Colorado Constitution Statutory Provisions: Statutory Provisions:

Intergovernmental Relations Police Services

The Outlook for Change The Inhibiting Factors

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Background

Summary of Findings Conclusions

The ManpoHer Picture Summary of Findings Conclusions

Internal Operating Systems Summa17 of Findings Conclusions

Radio Cu~nunications Summary of Findings Conclusions

Current Costs Summary of Findings Conclusions

Legal Basis for Reorganization Summary of Findings Conclusions

Probability for Lmv Enforcement Reorganization Summary of Findings Conclusions

i

iii

1

3 3 5 5 7 8 9

11 12 14 14 14 1.5 17 18 18

21 21 21 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 26

-

I I I I I I I I I

I I

I I I I I

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

IV. RECONHENDATIOXS Internal Operating Systems The Consolidation Issue

EXHIBITS

Tables

1. Authorized Police Positions, Summit County, Colorado

2. Career Paths of Key Local Officers

3. Internal Operating Systems

4. Local Government Expenditures for Law Enforcement in Summit County, 1975-1977

Figure

I. Location of Sumnit County, Colorado (fo11mvs page)

ii

27 27 28

6

8

10

13

3


FORE~'TORD

This report was prepared in response to a request for technical

assistance from local government and law enforcement officials in Su~~it

County, Colorado (through the North ~.;rest Colorado Council of Governments),

in the form of a feasibility study of la~v enforcement consolidation in the

county.

The consultant assigned ~'MS !'lr. Charles N. Girard, and others in

volved in processing the request ~·]cre:

Requesting Agency:

State Pl~nnin~ AGency:

Approvin? Agency:

Nr. David Young Criminal Justice Coordin3tor North '{cst Color,ldo Council o£

Govcrnments (011 he11.l1f of SU!'.u:::r.t County jurisdictions)

~'ls. Nancy C. Naron Planning Director Colorado Divis ion of CriDina 1 Jt1Gt: ce

Hro James G. Vetter Law Enforcement ProGram H:magC'r (Police) LEAA Region VIII (Denver)

Hr. Robert O. Heck Police Specialist LEAA Central Officc of Regional

Operations

iii

-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I. INTRODUCTIO~

The consolida.tion of police services in Summit County, Colorado,

has been an active issue since 1970. A feasibility study was conducted in

late 1972, and the report,.!./ published in March, 1973, concluded that 1my

enforcement problems in the county focused on frab~entcd services and limited

resources; the solution was identified as devc10pment of J p:utnership re-

1a tionship among the va.rious jurisdictions and a.gencies and avoidance of

competition and isola1:ion c Determin.1tion, good will, and cooperation were

described as being necessary to sumount the obstacles. Hm-;'cver, when the

issues of home rule a:ld consolidation "Jere put to a votu later that year,

Summit County voters '.:urned them dmm by a 3-to-l m:lrgin.

Interc~st in police consolid:ltion h.1S nonetheless persisted, and on

October 13, 1976, the mayors of the five loea 1ities involved, thl:ir chiefs

of police, the sheriff, and the chairF..;ln of the county commissionc·rs signed

a petitioning letter to the st.1te pI-lnning agency requesting .1notlv.~r fuasi

bility study to detemine the- pros and cons of consolid.ltion of all police

agencies in Summit County.

This study, which resulted fro:'l that request, was tasked \vitll sur

veying existing resources, assessing existing problems, and providing

alternative methods of delivering police services; supplementary to those

tasks, it also outlines the legal basis for consolidation and attempts to

provide insights into the likelihood of successful law enforcl:mcnt con

solidation in Summit County.

During the on-site ph:1se of the project in the ,yeek of March 28,

1977, the consultant examined various state, county, an0. .:1Unicipal docu

ments and records as background to the situation anti interviev7ed the fol-

1m'ling pers ons :

.!/Dr. George D. Eastron, Individual T~;~chnical Assistance Report in Response to a R(>quest for Technical Assistancl~ by tIl(' Summi.t County Sheriffts Departml~nt, Public Administr-ttion Service, Chicago, Illinois, }larch 9, 1973.

1

-


Mr. Ed Bibee Chief of Police Silverthorne, Color:ido

Hr. Hayne Bristol Mayor Frisco, Colorado

Hr. T, Brunv'Jnd Summit County CU';:'-:1iti.:>iom·r

Nr. Ct.'(; i 1 C" l."S t(:n Town H m.l[er Silverthorn..::, Col{)r~do

Nr. T. Eaf'Yl.! Administrator Summit Cou~lty Slll:,rHf r s Dt;!partment

}Is. Li~; Eth: Summit Cotlaty Cor.~is,~i(.'n('r

Mr. Robert farris Sheriff, SUt::!i1it County

Hr. Scott Gould Summit County C0:~rlis5iollt'r

Mr. Willia~ Koonce Chief of Pol! l:e Frisco, COiOrJlh)

Mr. R. Levengood Tmm }i'lnager Breckenridge, Colorado

Mr'. C. Lewis Cooper Mountain RCS0~t

Mr. Ro N~lyl1:.lrd Keystone Resort

Hr. D. Mead Communicittions Consultant

}ir. D. Hikul(;cky SUnIUit County }kmager

}ir. Rm·:land D. Porter Chid of Police Dillon, ColorJuo

Nr. Lee Ro "Joo18ey Ex~cutive Director North I·lest Colord.do Council of

Governments

}ir. D..l vid Y ouar, Cri:-:1itlll Justict;· Cooruiu:.'tor North \':C'st ('olor.:.1<1o Council ot

Govcrnr. ... mts

2

--- --------

-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I

II . ANALYS IS OF THE PROBLE}!

In analyzing the problems that affect a possible consolidation of

1a\v enforcement in Summit County, background material on the area will be

summarized and 1m'1 enforcencnt resources and practices discussed in detail.

The assessment of consolidation potential will include a look at both the

legal basis for such a move and the political climate for change in 1977.

Background

SUmr.1it COUilty, situated in the Blue River Valley of Colorado (see

Figure I, a r.Jap) is bordered by the Willi:lms Fork }10untains on the east,

the Continental Divide on the south, and the Gore Range on the \-lest. Ne..lr1y

70 percent of its 616 sq:.ure mill-s is composed of rutiona 1 forest, and the

county's r:1ain source of incor.Jc is tourism,

The county's population ,It the time of the 1970 census \vas 2,665,

but the Bureau of the CenSllS estir:1:lted its 1974 population at 5,200. The

Colorado Division of Planning's 1975 estimate gave a high of 6,237 and a

low of 6,117, but \-lhatev0r fi~ure is acccpt;;d, it is clear that the county

has grmm markedly and that the long-terra trend is for an ever-increasing

number of residents. The county's planning department reported in November,

1976, that bet\veen 1970 and 1976, some 5,347 housing units were added, with

the September, 1976, total being 7,545. A large percentage of these are

mmed and inhabited--on a part-time basis--by nonresidents.

The county I s extensive recreational facilities are the primary

reason for the building of so many vacation homes, including the Dillon

Reservoir, the A-Basin Ski Area, the Breckenridge Ski Area, the Cooper

Hountain Ski Area, and the: Keystune Resort 0 Dillon Reservoir recorded

over 450,000 visitor-days in 1975, ~nd there were over one million skier

visits to Summit County during the 1974-75 season. Hhen this tourist data

is included, the total population jumps to an av~rage of nearly 13,000

residents, a 142 percent increase over the 19"14 estimate by the Census

Bureau.

3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Figure I

LOCATION OF SUMMIT COCNTY, COLORADO

f ~ \ I J j ~ JAC_SeW <A~ "t~1 I, i WorrAt ~

-L0~TT \'Ol!CO:t!NSO I ..... no

'~ I OCRrmy

~ ,r' "~.~A~ r------ ,i (! ! \ CU~D I tJ~~e[R I l

r---; ,ltC, ~,r I ,""~H .. croH r ~IO ILA'C0.J ' -. ill '! ! I

.... - ' ''' "t""',-- I , I r'='lt., '." '----! ."AVi w~,"1:.rt I ~----, 'h... A! :m. ,~~.[; . 'f' • i '-' \ ... .,:.::0'(:-,· .. :~,f.A~~ .... AA ~

'c c .. 1 o. '",,0 \ ,,~,r.. '".( I .. :,-, ~ ...... :c StJNV' ..... ' ,.Utt.1-.. " ... .1 \t. 'l------r---'"--~ ,r- .---~,

, / I

I I ; ~ ! / ec~cus CLsrqr I >IT C"~O" r! I,

I I J 1. ! r llNCOLN \---------,

I COLORACO SP? "iGS. ,

! ·cue. , I---J r c;--' ,tt. ,,AS!t ! I ......., CO.( ~"~j r . j ~t.....:;s

C

.--~-----,--

I CR~W,tT

G"~"tLO

WCSA

'UkkISON

leG"'"

'WlllH'S

$oCDC ..... ·C<

e~cu

'A1Ht

C~tVt"'kt

-

('eVONT

PiJEBLO ,·ow.

T\JWA,

• I:JWO ; SAGlJAC"t ClJ~"'C~ ~----!

t

\

It"T ,~owt~S O'[~O

'"thO

w:1'(cn.t.L

WO.\TUUII"

UCA.

~IO '''''DC ALAVeSA

I AJrCHUt.tT4 COHeJOS

.... 5 AWN.S

LEGEND

<!) Places of 100.000 or mo'e Inhabrtants & P!.1ce~ or :0,00;) to 100.000 tnhab·tan\s

SCAt..C

.p-

o PI~ce~ o! 25.C:0 to 50.aeo irhab,lanls outsIde- SMSA's r. to '0 )0 ..., to .I\ott ==="~===t

/1 St~ndJr~ 1I.etropO'.!3n ~ St"t.~hcJ! AreH (SMSA'~l


5

As a result of completing the first bore of the Eisenhower Tunnel

in 1973, the county became more accessible to urban areas, and between

1972 and 1974, total traffic volume increased by 59 percent. The second

bore of the tunnel, due for Lompletion in the 1980's, is expected to further

increase the amount of traffic on Summit County roads.

Law Enforcement in Summit County

Hanpm-ler

Sum:uit County has a complement of 22 full-time>, sworn local law

enforcement officers, including the sheriff and vclrious chiefs available

for street duty, These officers are employed by the county's five local

departments as shm-m in Table 1. If national data are used, it \-lould ap

pear that the manpmvcr picture in the county is \"ell above average; the

sheriff's department alone averages 1.7 men per 1,000 in~lbitants verSUF a

national average of 1~3 men per 1,OOO.~/ This comparison is faulty in that

the county's permanent population does not provide a sound basis for deter

mining la\-l enforcement manpower needs. Rather, the number of permanent

residents must he considered in conjunction with the area's large tourist

population. Such a calculation indicates that, in fact, the sheriff's

department is seriously undermanned at .7 men per 1,000 peopleo~/ To fur

ther complicate this issue, \'lhen each department is considered sepnrately,

only the sheriff's department has a staff sufficient to provide 24-hour, 4/

one-man patrol, 7 d,lyS per Heek.-

~/Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States: 1975 (Hashington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Oificc, August, 1975), p. 223.

~/ Annua 1 avera~e population utilized 12,799 based on information provided in I;-1nd esc and Popula Uon An,llysis: Summit County, Colorado, prepared by Summit County PLuming DUl':.l::tml.'nt, p. 120.

Ij./A police force of ,1pproximately 5 men will provide 24-hour patrol of one man; a force of 11 men \-lil1 provide minimJ.1 back-up services for the I-man, 24-hour patrol; and, a force of 18 men '''ill provide investigative services and 3n additional second patrol. Three 24-hour patrols and minimal support per~;onnel ,,,ould result in a force.> of some 23 men. Thus, it would appear tll.1t n force of about 20 men would provide for continuous patrol with more than one patrol per shift, together \\lith pruliminnry investigative and administrative cervices. From John L. C'lllah~ltl> IIViahility of the Small Police Force," The Police Chief, Harch, 1973, pp. 56-59.

---- ------~---~---

-


Agency/Uni t of GOVl'rnment

Summit County Sheriff's Depa rto}(>nt

Frisco

Silverthorne

Dillon

Brc>ckenridge

Totals

Table 1

AUTHORIZED POLICE PO:;: ITIO:~S SID~HT COn::TY, COLORXi.'O

Chi('f- t'mhr- D('puty-

1 1 2 5

1 2

1 I

1 2

1 4

5 1 2 14

6

T()t,lls

g},./

3P./ 2fl./

3~./

5~/

22

'A/ Total doL's not include dispatch/commiss:ons pf'rsonnel because they '-lill function under the county "comr.lunic.1tions department" per inforuLltion providl!d by T. Mikulecky, County Ad!:1inistrator, N.J.1"ch 29, 1977. In addition, the fClUr personnel ilssigncd to the jail, one civil officer, and t\'lO administrative employees are not included.

~/ A reserve otficcr dlso averages 70 hours per month.

£/ Tmvn plnns to hire· ,1n additiom 1 officer during 1977 per discussion ''lith C. Carstens, Town Administ~ltor, ~~rch 30, 1977.

~/ To\m plLlns to hire an additional officer R. Porter, ~lief of Police, M1rch 30, 1977.

during 1977 per discussion with

'!:../ Notably, .1 ter.lpor<lry employee a Iso \vorks on a 35-hour-pe>r-\veek basis. Addition~lly, one additiNLll full-time position is projected for 1977. Further, a seventh officer may be addL'd durinr, the ski season. Information drawn from a personn 1 letter from Jim \';;In('k, Chid, da ted April 22, 1977.


7

Hmvever, if the total number of S~07orn patrol officers employed by

all the county's local agencies is used, this rate jumps to 1.7 per 1,000,

even when tourists are considered. This rate exceeds that available to

county\vidc operations throughout the United States (1.7 versus 1.32../), and

if this manpO\vcr complement ~07ere administered under ;1 single organization,

the county \vould have lm·, enforcement services available around the clock

throu~lout the year.

Police Educ~tion [led Tr3inin~

Another dSpl~ct of the m,lnpm·:cr picture concerns the education and

training of til(' v,lri0US officers. ~':hilc all Jgc'nciE!s, "lith the ('xception of

the lln·cb:nrhl!,,(. Dc:p .• rt:nc·nt, r0quirt! b:lsic Co1ori.l.do La,v Enforcement Trdining

Acadeny (eL!:T:\' ') ct.:rtific·.!tion of new officers, the issue of education and

traini.ng- is moot. Norc speCifically, although all agencies seek high school

gradui1 tes as patrol 0fficcrs, strict ":ritten po] ieies to this effect do not

consiRtently support this ohj.:eth'!">. further, due to the small size of the

v,1rious agL'ncit,s and the U(·ed to field r:uilpNver on ,1n on~~oing basis, the

departments h..lve found it <"xtrL'mcly difficult to p lrticipal..e in any type of

in -service tra ining.

As indicdted, the BrE!ckenricige Police Depdrtment is an exception to

the education and training profile projl'ctC'd by tlw m.ljority of the county's 6/

loca 1 dcp .. lrtr:lCnts. In l:1ct, the depilrtmellt IS chic,f has pointed out:-

p. 223.

... all officl'l-s 1n'll' collef~l' h..ickgrounds; two officers hIve more thJ n one dl'(~n:e; three o:C:£icers have B.A. IS, ..lnci onc o[[jcer is in the fin~ll year of the B.A. The .:1\Tprage poliCe experil·nct' is 3.5 yedrs (und) ... since August, 1976, the officers have participated in If 1 internal or cxterna 1 tr.Jining seminars for d total of 234.5 hours of in-service tr3ining.

~.lFedera 1 Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United St,ltes: 1975,

6/ - Personal letter to Dave Young from Jim Hanek, Chief, Breckenridge

Police Department, April 22, 1977.

-


\ \

8

Prior Experience of Ltn" Enforcement O.:[fi.cia ls

In revie~·'ing the experiences ~f a number of the loca 1 law enforce\

ment officials, ;In interesting phenomei:ton becomes apparent. There is a re

volving popul..ltion of officers Jmonf; th\" area's departments, as depicted in

the £0110,,,ing table. Hhen local officials ~"ere queried about this condition,

their responses suggested that due to the difficulty in recruiting law en

forcement "types)" ~.;hcn an offi.cer "gets in troublc lf with a local elected

officiul and/or his chid) he si.mply tnvL'ls ,1 few miles down the road and

can norr.ully find a job dS long as he h.lsn' t done something lfi11egal."

Summit COUiity Slit-riff I s n~·;)t.

Table 2

CAREER PATHS OF KEY LOCAL OFFICERS

Breclwnrid~t~ PeU ct' Lkpt.

Frisco POliCl\ Dept.

Silverthorne Police Dept.

G. Erickson------------------I~ (fired 12/76)

H. Koonce -------

Eo Bibee-------~~

Dillon Police D~

- ,------D. Hikesell

Th0 reasons for these career switches should not be solely attributed

to probl~cs or dis.:preements Yet, it is interesting to note that many of

thcse chdnges occurred in conjunction with ~"holes,lle re-staffings of a num

her of the agencies; e.g., W. Koonce, Frisco's current chief, left Brecken

ridr,l~ in 1976 to t..lkl! d pOSition in Frisco wht~n th3t tOHn's leaders decided

to cll.lngco tho:.; community IS 1>nv t;u[orcGlUent imige to one of liS oft sell/public

service. II Simibrly, E. Bibc.·e moved from Frisco to Silverthorne ~"hen t!le

former community I S lcadc·rs dccid('d they "anted \I • less hard-line laH

enforccm('llt and marc of a citizen's home guard force. II

This ancllysis is not mt',mt as criticism of the abilities or Sincerity

of the various officc.'rs; r,l thc·r it is offered to provide a perspective as to

the nLlturc of the local Imv enforcument community. Further, it is presented

-


9

to provide additional fodder for consumption by those considering law en

forcement consolid.1 tion a lternatives for the county. Clc'clrly, as the analysis

indica tes, when la,'7 enforcement IIpurges II took place in various loca 1 agen

cies, a number of the officers involved simply ch.:mged the color of their

uniforms and continued as keepers of the peace elsewhere in Summit County.

Internal Opernting Systems

The £ollm"ing table compares conditions in the county's local

linv enforcement agencies vis-a-vis various control and operating systems

traditiona lly found in such organi;!:~ tions. As the table indicates, the

extent .J.nd n,lture of the suppurt systems vary among the lOCJl agencies.

BriC!f comments regarding each system follou:

o

o

Policies and Procedures: The written policies and procedures tllclt arc the .13sis of the operations of the majority of the dep.J.rtments arc sk01etal at best. Thus, ~l s shOlo]l1 in the tab .l.e, they ,vere cons idercd as nonexistent for purposes of this analysis. Albeit the dcpi.lrtments are 31'1..111, it \vould bc to th(~ benefit or the conmunities in consideration of potential legi.ll liability issues to formu1atc basic policies and procedures for their departments.

Policies 11nd procedures used in the Sheriff's Department serve as a good foundation for operations; yet they should be revimled and updated on an ongoing basis with reg,lrd to contemporary changes in local, state, and federal laws.

Offense/Crime Reporting: Not n11 agencies participate in the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) processes in Summit County. Thus it is difficult to track actual crime cxpericnc(~s in the county. Further) the various townsl elected officb 1s have no established lIyardstick" by \\lhich to judp,e their departments' effectivL'ncss. Horeover, efforts should be made to promote the coordinated reporting of crime through the UCR process in Summit County.

Forms Utilized: Currently, each agency employs a wide variety of forms designed by their personnel. Further, .1 number utilize ct'rtain state records/forms (e.g., tickets). In terms of records comparability and interfacing bet\07een and among the various agencies, it \vould be pre:CerablL~ if some of the forms were standardized. In addition, the towns could then purchase such items at less cost 011 a bulk basis.

- - - - - -Control and Opera:-' '::lns Systems

Policies and Procedures

o General Orders/Departmental Procedures Manual

Records Systems

o ' Offense/Crime Reporting (UC~

c Activity Reporting

~ Forms Utilized

Evidence and Property Control System

G Written Procedures

o Nature of Facilities for Storage of Property

- - - - - - - - - -e 3

INTERNAL ~,;;l::RATING SYSTEMS

Summit County Sheriff's Dept D

Existent

Participates in UCR system

Yes

Combination of state and de-partmental de-signed

. b/ EXlstent--

Locker and b/ Storage Barn-

Status of System in Department Breckenridgeal Frisco Silverthorne Police Dept.- Police Dept. Police Dept.

Not available Nonexistent Nonexistent

Participates Does not Does not in UCR participate participate

in UCR in UCR

Yes Yes Yes

Not available Combination Combination of state and of state and departmental departmental designed designed

Not available Nonexistent Nonexistent

Not available File Cabinet/ Built-in Desk Lockers

- -Dillon

Police Dept.

Nonexistent

Plans to par--ticipate in UCR, April, 1977

Yes

Combination of state and departmental designed

Nonexistent

File Cabinet/ Desk

-

~/Because the Breckenridge Chief of Police was sick the week of March 28, only limited information was available to the consultant on these aspects of department's operations. Such data was provided by the Town Manager during a Barch 29 interview.

£/During the on-site visit, the Sheriff's Department evidence system was under review by departmental personnel and an audit was being conducted at the request of the County Board of Commissioners.

t-' o


Radio Communications

Radio communications are currently provided to all laH enforcement

agencies by the Sheriff's Department. To improve this capability, the county

in cooperation v7ith the various tOHn departments and the North Hest Colorado

Council of Governments has tendered an application Hith LEAA. Further, a

Sunnnit County Communications Board has been structured to provide policy

direction to the implementation of the updated system, and the county ad

ministrator has organized e. neH Communications Department to administer

the system in an efficient and effective manner.

Unfortunately, Hhile efforts to improve coordinated laH enforcement

communications could be expected to meet \'7ith little opposition, this has

not been the case in S~mmit County. One of the underlying reasons for this . 7/

situation Has summarized by a local chief in the folloWing manner:-

• . . The area of communications development and improvement appears to be a continuing prublem area from a standpoi!lt of politics. Every governmental group seems to ~oJant to control the connnunications and its development, and the one body, the communications board, which ioJas formed for this expressed purpose, seems to be incapable in this area due to limitations imposed.

Hith this situation in mind, those intervieHed Here asked a variety of ques

tions T;garding a consolidated connnunications operation. In eveL~ case,

those intervieHed offered the following opinions regarding the proposed

system:

Question: Do you think the system Hill benefit laH enforcement and the participating communities?

Responses: Yes.

Question: Do you have confidence in the technical capabilities and organizational prowess of the "consultant" (D. Mead) Hho has been retained to set up the system?

Responses: Yes.

Z.!Letter to H. Bristol, Mayor of Frisco, from H. Koonce, Chief of Police, January 6, 1977.

11


Question: Will you use the system once it becomes operational?

Responses: Yes.

Question: Do you think the system ,,,ill serve as a first step tm"ard the development of more cooperative working relationships between the county's local law enforcement agencies?

Responses: Yes, if politics is kept out of the operation and if Summit County keeps the towns informed as to the number of activities/c<:'llls that are dispatched through the system for each jurisdiction o

12

As summarized by one tmm administrator, the upgraded communications

system offers a unique opportunity to loc al 1m.] enforcement. However, II if those at the top expect to disenfranchise the to\ms in the process

as they did in the countyt·,ide building inspector programs, they are in for

a rude m-1akening. In fact, if that occurs, my to\-m will purchase its own

radio connnunications equipment. 1&/ In short, although law enforcement per

sonnel are ready to rely on cooperative communications, they should be

handled carefully and all issues dealt with above-board if the program is

to be a success 0

Current Costs

The figures presented in Table 4 speak for themselves. Since 1975,

the average costs to support the existing systems have increased by 40 per

cent. Further, the price tag has risen more than 50 percent in three to"ms -

Frisco, Silverthorne, and Dillon. The residents of the various tm-rus are

paying higher prices to support their police departments as well as subsidize

the Sheriff's operation.

Even though conditions such as this are being faced throughout the

United States, Summit County residents might wish to reassess continuing in

the same direction when they realize that: (1) on a per capita basis, permanent

'§j Ibid. This opinion \\'as expressed by more than one agency represen-tative.


Table 4

LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES FQI} LAW' ENFORCEIYlENT IN SmJ:.vlIT COUNTy.!::'

Agency 1975

Summit County bl Sheriff's Department- $166,386

Frisco 41,073

Silverthorne 35,829

Dillon 39,667

Lrcckenridge 106,509

Total 2389/+64

1975 - 1977

1976 1977

$161,256 $232,599

30,086 64,150

30,335 64,546

61,528 66,682

III ,000 118 ,472

$394 2 205 ~5462449

Amount of Increase

1975-1977

$ 66,213

23,077

28,717

27,015

11,963

~;156 2 985

13

Percent Increase 1975-1977

40

56

81

68

11

40

~/This information was drawn from local budget documents. The 1977 figures arc budgeted totals.

£/FigureS do not include costs for jail staff and operations which were approved at $102,896 for fiscal 1977. Further, the 1977 figur 0S do not include costs for operating the dispatch communications function. Permanent staff costs for this function during 1977 are estimated at more than $32,000.

- -- ---~----~------~--


l4

taxpayers are currently paying over $100 each per year to support the existing

police systems; und (2) costs for law enforcement operations range from 13

to 25 percent of local budgets.

While the scope of this assignment and the unique nature of Summit

County's needs do not permit a detailed financial analysis or comparison of

these totals with other jurisdictions, county residents may wish to under

take such a study. In <iny case, the populace of Summit County should be ad

vised that the price of supporting existing systems is considerable and is

unlikely to decrease in the future.

Assessing the Possibility of Consolidation

The Legal Basis

A review of existing constitutional, statutory, and other appropriate

sourccs2./ of the legal 1::asL~ for law enforcement and police services reorgani

zation \vithin the State of Colorado follmvs. In addition, the legal basis

for intergovernmental cooperation in Colorado is discussed.

The Colorado Constitution

The present constitution of the State was adopted on Harch 14, 1876,

and has been amended to keep it a viable document. The constitution includes

few specifics concerning the enforcement of lmvs or the provision of police

services. p.xticle IV, Section 2, defines the Governor as the supreme execu

tive of the State and directs that he is responsible for seeing that the "laws

be faithfully executed. 11 The Office of Sheriff is briefly mentioned under

Article XIV, Section 6, \vhich sets forth the offices and length of term of

elected county officials. The duties and responsibilities of this office

are set forth by statute.

'l/Sources include the State Constitution, various sections of Colorado Revised Statutes and Police Services in Delta County, Colorado, a report prepared by the Bureau of Criminal Justice, 1974, pp. 35-L~1 and passim.


.15

The constitution is also vague regarding intergovernmental cooperation

with one major exception: Article XX, Section 6, Home Rule, Facilities and

Town. Amendment Number 3, Local Government Reform, hmvever, does provide an 10/

alternative to existing fragmentation. The amendment,=- although not specifi-

cally relating to law enforcement, provides for the organization, structure,

function, services, facilities, and powers of "service authorities" to meet

governmental needs on a regional basis. The amendment also provides for

counties to abolish nonfunctional offices or consolidate duplicative ones.

This home rule, in effect, ~vould ensure that counties continue to provide

those services required by law, not in the manner that \-las provided for in

1876, but within a framework for intergovernmental relations which \vould

benefit society in both delivery of services and their cost.

Statutorv Provisions: IntC'r~overru:1cntal Relations .. Until the 1972 session of the State Legislature, political entities

within the State were greatly restricted in seeking alternatives to the

provision of police services on a unified or amalgamated basis. Article 2,

Contracts for Governmental Services Sections CRS 88-2-1, 88-2-3, as repealed

and re-enacted by Senate Bill 175, sets forth the authority for governmental

units (meaning a II county, city and county, city, town, service authority,

school district, local improvement districts, law enforcement authority,

. • . or any kind of municipal, quasi-municipal, or public corporation or

ganized pursuant to law") to IIcooperate or contract with one another to

provide any function, service or facility lmvfully authorized to each of the

cooperatiu-:; or contracting units, including the sharing of costs, the im

position of taxes or the incurring of debt,1I upon authorization by the con

cerned parties' legislative body or other authority. In short, it provides

that anyone or more goverT~ental units can provide a variety of services

or activities. Notably, II. • • a recent opinion of the repealed statute by

the State Attorney General, Barch 1, 1971, precluded the county sheriff

from entering directly into contract with a city, town, or home rule city

10/T\vo <Jcts \Vere signed that specifically relate to this amendment (CRS 1963 88-2-1 through 88-2-3 and 36-28-11).

---~-----


(also see Attorney General Opinion 69-4306). However, a recent amendment

(1971) to the Lmv Enforcement Authority Statute (36-27 -10) provides legal

authority for contractual relationship between municipality and board of

county commissioners for the provision of "lmv enforcement, including the

enforcement of municipal ordinances by the sheriff within the boundaries

f h "1' ,,11/ o· t e munLcLpa Lty. --

Article 3, Netropolitan Districts, 1947 Act, Sections 89-3-1 through

89-3-33 provides for the estnblishment of a variety of special districts

including protective districts. The police protection district subsection

of the act was repealed in the 1965 legislative session; however, under

subsection (6) safety protection districts arc authorized \vhich are limited

to those activities of a trnffic nature (high'Ymy and railway).

16

In 1969, a bill (Statutes, Article 27, Section 36-27-1 through 36-27-9

as amended in 1971, Article 27, Sections 36-27-1 through 36-27-11) \vas enacted,

authorizing a county to provide "additional law enforcement by the county

sheriff, to the residents of the developed or develnping unincorporated

areas of the county. 11 This unincorporated area is knm·]D as a Law Enforcement

Authority (LEA). Thc\ authority is basically a ta.-xing unit, created by county

commission resolution and approved by a majority of voters. The authority

can only be established upon the approval of tax-paying electors during a

special election. A special tax levy not exceeding three mils on taxable

property may be collected for payment of the operating expenses of the

authority.

The Desibnation of Services (CRS 89-25-12) in the legislation which

created the Regional Service Authorities (CRS-2S-l) provides for, in ac

cordance to local authorization, the initiation of certain areas directly

relevant to tl:e delivery of criminal justice services on a regional basis.

These include: (1) "central purchasing, computer services, equipment pools

and any other man.lgement services for local government, including: a procure

ment of supplies, acquisition, management, maintenance, and disposal of

property and equipment, legal services, special communications systems, or

11./Policc Services in Delta County, Colorado, p. 37.

-------- ---------------

I II

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

17

any other similar service to local governments which are directly related to

improving the efficiency or cooperation of local governments"; and (2) "jail

and rehabilitation."

Horeover, while this legislation offers no alternatives for the delivery of

field services, numerous avenues are available in the provision of ancillary

type services (staff and auxiliary services).

Statutory Provisions: Police Services

At the state level, two agencies have law enforcement responsibilities:

the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CRS 3-24-1 through 3-24-14) and the

Colorado State Patrol (CRS 120-10-1 through 120-10-31). The Colorado Bureau

of Investigation (CEI) agents have peace officer authority of the State,

thus the power and authority of sheriffs, police, and other peace officers.

The agency, however, may only investigate at the request of local officials

,(nonpolice and police) or upon the direction of the Governor. The Colorado

State Patrol's responsibilities are highly restricted by statute to that of

traffic enforcement and accident investigation. They do possess peace of

ficer authority for tr.:1ffic enforcement and may assist local agencies upon

their request and with the approval of the Governor (CRS 120-10-31) 0 They

are also authorized to provide communications (radio and teletype) services

to sheriff's offices and municipal police dopartments upon application by

same (CRS 120-10--26).

The definition of peace officers is set forth under statutes CRS 124-

23-3(5) and 99-2-1.

Hinimum standards for peace officers are provided for under statutes

CRS 124-23-1. The statutes fall short in several aspects: addressing ini

tial entry level personnel only, "grnndfathering clause," and the limited

representation of the board members are just a few problems.

The duties and responsibilities of the county sheriff, a constitutional

office, are set forth in statutes--the primary one relative to law enforce

ment, peace officers, and jails (CRS 35-5-1, 99-2-1, and 105-7-1, respectively).

The sheriff is the responsible peace officer (CRS 34-5-16) for preserving the

peace, quieting and suppressing all affrnys, riots, and unlawful assemblies,


18

serving in the process of civil or criminal cases, and apprehending or

securing any person for a breach of the peace in his respective county. The

sheriff is also responsible for maintaining a county jail (CRS 35-5-11),

which may be utilized by municipal governments for the confinement or punish

ment of offenders (CRS 139-32-130).

Although the sheriff is the IIkeeper of the county jail," provisions

are made (CRS 105-7-19 and 105-7-24) for the utilization of jail facilities

of counties nearest that county ~'7ith insufficient j ail facilities.

Cities and tmms are authorized a variety of powers under the General

Power Statutes (CRS 139-32-1). Included therein is the authority to enact

ordinances '-lhich arc to regulate the police, ordinances that prescribe the

duties and powers of all police personnel, and ordinances which the police

enforce. No distinction is made by city class regarding police powers. In

tmms, the office of marshal (CRS 139-6-5) is provided for; it is essentially

that of a peace officer.

Moreover: Colorado State laH provides for various forms of law enforce

ment reorganization. The key issue thus becomes the tenor of the political

and organizational environment among those units of government contemplating

such changes. This issue is addressed beloH.

The Outlook for Change

Inhibiting Factors

Although police reorganization is legally possible in Summit County,

politics, organizational jealousies, and the distinctly different laH en

forcement philosophies of the various jurisdictions involved appears to

preclude its occurrence in the near future. Brief examples of these "inhibit

ing" factors are:

1. The Omnipresence of the Sheriff. As noted above the sheriff is

II • the responsible peace officer . in his respective county. II As

such, sheriffs' offices often serve as the facilitator, mot:i.vator, and

provider for reorganized police services. Hhile this is legally permissible

in Summit County, it is pragmatically improbable. Rather than belabor the

issue by repeating the various lIattcmptsll at character assassination and


charges of organizational incompetency levied by intervicnvees against the

Summit County Sheriff and his agency, two ncn'lspaper headlines are offered

as indicators of the attitude of many of the county's police regarding the

sheriff and his operation: 12 /

"Dillon Chief Says: Farris Hay Face Auto Charge."

"F arris Charged for Speeding."

Horeover, \vhile local law enforcement personnel are ready to work

closely with line officers representing the Sheriff's Department, little

confidence or respect vHlS expressed for the agency's elected leader. As

19

set out during field interviews, local lmv enforcement officers would strongly

resist suggestions from the sheriff that they reorganize under his control.

Further, the current she.riff as an elected official \vill, no doubt, be cautious

in terms of efforts proposed to stimulate more cooperation and/or sugges-

.tions that law enforcement be reorganized during the remainder of his term.

In short, his omnipresence as 11 constitutionally mandated law officer will . 1 S· . 13/ cont~nue as ong as urom~t County voters perm~t.--

2. A Dichotooy in Law Enforcement Philosophy. Another key factor

which bears on the potential for law enforcement reorganization in Summit

County concerns the attitudes of the various "communities" in terms of "\vhat

they want" from their police agencies. However intangible, these attitudes

provide a good indicator of the chances for "political" survival of the

subject among an area's leaders and electorate.

Hhen the various intervicnvees \vere queried on this point, the dichotomy

depicted below became apparent.

12/surnmit County Journal, Volume 97, No. 38 and No. 39, September 16 and 23, 1976.

l3/0n July 21, \vhile this report was in final typing, Sheriff Farris and his chief deputy were arrested and charged with eight counts of felony theft. This development could have considerable bearing on the question of consolidation.


Law Enforcement Philosophies

Public Service/ Resident Service/High Low Profile Reactive ~(----------~7. Profile Proactive Enforcement Enforcement

sup-In short, the various IIc onn:mnities ll14 / within Summit County are

porting divergent styles of law enforcement. Patently, that is their

privilege; hmo1ever, to expect that proposals for reorganization/consolida-

20

tion in such an environment Hould be viable is unrealistic at this point in

Surrnnit Countyls history.

3 0 The Impact of the Prior Experience. As described earlier, a number

of the areals key law enforcement officers (e.g., chiefs in Frisco and Silver

thorne) have gained experience in sister agencies in Sunnnit County. It ~o1as

further pointed out that the "best conditions and positive feelings" may

not have existed between these officers and community representatives \o1hen

they changed jobs. Nonetheless, they have continued to function as important

cogs in the local 1mo1 enforcement system and in a number of instances are nato1

developing organizations of their m·m.

Hhen this situation is considered in the light of its effect on the

potential for county\"ide law enforcement reorganization, several conclusions

may be drmvn: (1) due to past experiencus in particular organizational

positions, various law enforcement officers and/or community members may

strongly oppose the development of a new agency staffed by existing personnel

and responsible to a broader clientele group than is currently the case; and

(2) due to the development of their mvn IIcareers" and "departments, II the law

enforcement professionals now serving Summit County may resist efforts to

reorganize and/or consolidate local Im'l enforcement delivery systems.

14·/ For purposes of this statement, lIcommunities II includes private recreational providers as well as independent tnxpayers.

----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

21

III. FINDINGS ~~D CONCLUSIONS

The key findings of this technical assistance report, \vhich has as

its objective an analysis of Summit County's existing law enforcement de

livery systems from the viewpoint of the potential for reorgnnizing or con

solidating operations arc summarized belmv. In addition, .specific conclusions

based on these findings are presented.

Background

SUIru11ary of Findings

Key findings on Summit County's socioeconomic background whicJ:l are

related to police services are:

•

•

• •

The county's major source of income is tourism.

Nearly 70 percent of the county's 616 squ3re miles are comprised of undeveloped natural forest.

The area has experienced unprecedented growth in the first half of the dec~de of the 1970·s.

Population increases are projected for the future.

Hhen tourist data arc considered, the area's popUlation jumps to an average of nearly 13,000 residents, or 142 percent over the permanent count calculated by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Due to the second home boom in the county, many of the area's housing units are occupied only on a parttime basis.

The G.ounty I s natural geography draws tourists interested in active and passive recreation,

The "first bore ll of the Eisenhower Tunnel made the county an attractive and accessible area to urban Colorado residents. The completion of the "second bore" is expected to further increase the flmv of traffic through Summit County.


Conclusions

• ~1ile population figures alone do not portend increased strain on the county's lmv enforcement delivery systems, when considered along \\1ith the number of vacant second homes \'7hich provide prime targets for crimes against property, it is reasonable to assume that the need for law enforcement \vill continue to grmv.

The Manpower Picture

Summary of Findings

$ Summit County has a complement of 22 full-time local lmv enforcement officers, including the sheriff and the various chiefs available for street duty.

•

If the area's average permanent population, including tourists, is compared \vith the total number of local officers available, Sumr:1it County's manpmver complement exceeds national averages.

Only the Sheriff's Department currently has enough men to staff Cl 24-hour, 7 -day-per-\veek pCltrol operation.

All agencies require new officers to complete CLETA basic trClining.

With the exception of the Breckenridge Police Department, the various agencies have found it difficult to participate in in-service training. One major reason has been thClt the small size of the departments has not permitted officers to spend time away from their normal street duties.

1-1any of the personnel switches that have occurred between the area departments have accompClnied wholesale re-staffings of one or more of the organizations involved.

Conclusions

o Hhen nCltional Clverages are employed, it would appear that Summit County overall has an adequate number of local

22

officers, but care should be taken in accepting this comparison considering the tourist "peaks" and "valleys" that occur throughout the year and the limited ability of the various forces to field nwnpo\ver daily on 1-1 24-hour bClsis.

- -.


----

• Due to the size of the various departments and the need to field all available manpower, it is unlikely that the level of in-service training activities will increase in the foreseeable future unless an outside agency intervenes in the process.

Internal Operating Systems

Summary of Findings

e Written policies and procedures undergirding the operations of the majority of departments are skeletal, at best.

e Written policies And procedures in the Sheriff's Department serve as a good foundation for operations.

o Not all agencies participate in the Uniform Crime Reports process.

o Currently the vnrious ngencies employ a variety of .Lorms designed by their personnel. Further, a number utilize certnin state records and forms (e.g., tickets).

Conclusions

• The lack of well-codified policies and procedures in a number of the departments could expose the agencies to legal liability problems.

(1 Hithout all departments participating in the standard Uniform Crime Reports Pl:OCCSS, it is difficult for local officials to evnlu<1te the crime situation in Summit County. Further, ~-1ithout this "yardstick" for comparison, it is difficult to determine the effectiveness of the various agencies.

Q The variety of forms being used makes data comparisons and sharing among the departments difficult. Further, if some standardization ~vere implemented, each jurisdiction could appreciate savings through bulk purchase procedures.

Radio Con~unicntions

Summ:1ry of Findings

G Radio communications are currently provided to all lmv enforcement agencies by the Sheriff's Deportment.

23

------I I I I I I I I I

•

•

•

o

An application to upgrade the current system has been tendered \.;rith LEAA.

A representative county communications board has been structured to provide policy direction to those that administer the upgraded system.

Summit County has organized a new "communications department" to administer the proposed system.

The area of communications development and improvement appears to be a continuing problem area from a standpoint of politics.

Local law enforcement officials have confidence in the technical capabilities and organizational prowess of the consultant who has been retained to set up the systemo

Local lav] enforcement officials will use the system once it becomes operational.

e The system is perceived as a first step toward the development of more cooperative working relationships among the county's local law enforcement agencies.

Ii The tm\Tl1S feel a need to be kept informed as to the number of activities/calls that are dispatched through the system concerning each jurisdictiono

G If care is not taken in implementing the system, some agencies will develop their own communications capabilities.

Conclusions

Q The upgraded communications system offers a unique opportunity to improve the cooperative relationships between the agencies as well as their service delivery capabilities.

o Extreme care will have to be taken in implementing the proposed system, and the various participants \vill need to be kept informed concerning the various aspects of the process.

Current Costs

Summary of Findings

a Since 1975, the average costs to SUpp01~t the existing systems have increased by 40 percent.

24

-I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

• Since 1975, the local laH enforcement price tag has risen more than 50 percent in three area towns--Frisco, Silverthorne, and Dillon.

Q On a per capita basis, permanent taxpayers are currently paying over $100 each per year to support existing police systems.

e Costs for local la,v enforcement operations range from 13 to 25 percent of local budgets.

Conclusions

@ I~ocal law enforcement is a costly item in Summit County.

o Each year, residents of the various tmvns are paying higher prices to support their police departments as well as the countywide sheriff 1 s operations.

" Summit County taxpayers should be advised of the magnitude of the costs for supporting all loc9-l la"1 enforcement operationso

Legal Basis for Reorganization

SUI~ary of Findings

Conclusions

Colorado state law provides for various forms of law enforcement reorganization.

Legally, steps could be tru<en in Summit County to reorganize the lmv enforcement delivery systems.

Probability for Law Enforcement Reorganization

Summary of Findings

(J Hhile local law enforcement officers are ready to work closely with line personnel representing the Sheriff's Department, they have expressed little confidence in or respect for the sheriff.

- -'"--

25

-I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

•

•

• o

The current sheriff will probably proceed cautiously in terms of efforts to stimulate more cooperation and/or suggestions that Imv enforcement be reorganized during the remainder of his term.

Pursuant to state lmv, the sheriff is the responsible peace officer in his respective county.

The various "communities II ~vithin Summit County are supporting divergent styles of lmv enforcement.

A number of the area's key law enforcement officers have gained experience in sister agencies in Summit County. The best conditions and most positive feelings may not have existed between these officers and community representatives ~vhen they changed jobs. These lmv enforcement professionals are noW developing police organizations for their new employers in Summit County,

Conclusions

•

•

•

As an elected official, the sheriff will have to continue as a major participant in reorganization discussions,

Due to dislike for or lack of confidence in the sheriff, local officers will be likely to resist steps to reorganize their operations under his auspices.

Due to past experiences in particular organizational positions, various la~v enforcement officers and/or community members may strongly oppose the development of a new agency staffed by existing personnel and responsible to a broader clientele group.

Due to the development of their own "careers II and "departments, II the lmv enforcement professionals now serving Summit County may resist efforts to reorganize and/or consolidate local lmv enforcement delivery systems.

Organizational jealousies, politics, and the divergent lmv enforcement philosophies held by the various communities of interest preclude the reorganization/consolidation of lmv enforcement in Summit County at the present time.

26


IV. RECGYIHENDAT I ONS

Summit County is faced Hith a uniquely exacerbating situation. In

the aggregate, the area has over 20 local la~" enforcement professionals

available to keep the peace. However, these officers are divided among

agencies and communities Hhich expect different types of enforcement from

"their" departments. Further, while the costs for lmv enforcement continue

to rise, the ability of the populace to determine hmv the area stands in

terms of crime is limited due to the fact that all agencies do not par

ticipate in the Uniforn Crime Reports process. Lastly, based on a variety

of indicators it appears highly unlikely that efforts to reorganize the exist

ing systems under a ne\.] agency ~vould be successful. To assist local decision

makers in formulating a strategy to deal ~vith these conditions and to insure

continued delivery of existing services in the most efficient and effective

manner, the folloHing recommendations are presented.

Internal Operating Systems

With regard to upgrading the standards of law enforcement support

systems, the following should be considered.

Development of Departmental General Orders and Policies and Procedures. The skeletal nature of policies and procedures utilized by the various departments should be improved. As appropriate, an LEAA National Technical Assistance contractor might be requested to provide input to this process.

Standardize the Variolls Forms Utilized by Law Enforcement Agencies. The variety of forms being used by the local agencies makes data comparisons and sharing difficult. Consideration should be given to standardizing some of these lmv enforcement tools, e.g., tickets, offense reports, etc. As appropriate, an LEAA National Technical Assistance contractor might be requested to provide input to this process.

27


• Implementation of the Consolidated Communications Systemo Extreme care should be tru(en in implementing the proposed system. Further, information as to the value of the system to various jurisdictions should be provided on an ongoing basis after the system is established, by keeping records of the number of calls dispatched for each tmm department through the system. Otherwise, tmvn officials and county commissioners will have no ~vay of determining the impact of the system on each jurisdiction and/or the viability and cost-effectiveness to the county of supporting the entire system.

The Consolidation Issue

28

Hith regard to the issue of la,v enforcement consolidation, the follmv

ing is offered:

Action to Force Consolidation o Care should be taken in attempting to force police consolidation at this time. Such factors as varying law enforcement philosophies, the background of a number of participants in the current system, and the. political climate suggests such efforts would be frUitless, despite the interest previously expressed (e.g., in the request for assistance) by the localities and their officials.

The Development of a Local Study Committee. The Summit County rel'resentative to the North West Colorado Council of Governments, in conjunction \'lith the elected officials in Summit COWlty, should convene a specialized law enforcement study committee with assistance provided by the staff of the North West Colorado Council of Governments to further analyze the conditions noted in this report. In particular, the commi ttee should look carefully at the relationships between the increasing costs for law enforcement services, the relative levels of professionalism extant, and the county's need to field law enforcement personnel 24 hours a day, 7 days a \~eek, throughout the year. Publication of these facts and opportunities for objective discussion of them could rcsul t in important changes in public attitudes that would in turn affect those of law enforcement officials.

-- If you have issues viewing or accessing this file … you have issues viewing or accessing this...

Documents

Transcript of -- If you have issues viewing or accessing this file … you have issues viewing or accessing this...